October 19, 2011

Says Meade, after I read him a blog post that calls me "obtuse" for writing about how 2 men were talking past each other about affirmative action. This blogger simply agreed with the man who stated the crisply clear position that race discrimination is always wrong and bad, and since I did not — I was more interested in the way the 2 men could not interact — I was obtuse.

My response to Meade was: "A lot of people don't really like shopping."

Given the track record of those who took complete ownership of their own thoughts and ideas, maybe it's a good thing so few people do it. People who consider their ideas well thought out can tend to be overly zealous to their conclusions, which is a very huberistic attitude no matter what the idea might be. Far better to be dumb, indifferent and totally wrong than brilliant, zealous, and even a slight bit wrong.

Anyone undertaking the prospect of learning the truth should repeat this mantra: Though truth can be found and understood, one can never assume you have complete understanding of it. Truth is generally too profound to be perfectly understood by anyone.

Spread Eagle: "Affirmative action, yeah. Where I've see this happening for years and years is on the abortion issue."

The problem is easily understood using the terms of rhetoric. Each side has what's called an emphameme, which is a basic point of view they assume everyone else agrees with. Unless they are able to see they have different emphamemes, there is really no prospect of constructive argument.

pro-life: "Can't we at least agree that a baby is alive and entitiled to protection at some time before birth?"

pro-choice: "Can't we at least agree that what goes on inside a woman's body is the private decision of her and her alone?"

Since these arguments are rarely debated, all "debate" on the subject is generally futile. Similarly on affirmative action, the different participants are guided by different emphamemes, and since they don't realize it and don't agree and don't even argue about which emphameme is correct, all argument is vapid talking one past another.

From what I have heard from conversations such as the one described is that the marketplace of ideas is actually a flea market of opinions. It is better to lay the groundwork for discussing opinions versus ideas at the outset to avoid talking past each other.

Most of us have moved beyond racism a long time ago. The only one's using it now as a trump card are those who would beat us up with it for something we had nothing do with in the first place. It was bad when it happened but it is history which is full of similar injustices. Reminds me of white guilt, reparations, entitlement and the recent Pigford Scandal.

You want to stop a conversation with me as an American because I disagree with Obama? Call me a racist. Your dogma bores me and diminishes you. I don't shop in that marketplace.

But some ideas have less merit than others. Therefore, the lesser idea should get more exposure, funding, time, etc

Some ideas are propounded by “marginalized peoples” and hence need a larger stage, provided by others….the Occupy(City) groups are coming to see this and are forming “diversity sub-committees” to ensure a properly diverse set of ideas is presented.

"Where I've see this happening for years and years is on the abortion issue. Neither side really hears what the other side is saying. It goes right by them."

Well, what's the compromise position for abortion or affirmative action?

Many issues aren't black and white, but for those that are (or are strongly perceived as such), opponents and proponents talking past each other hardly seems remarkable, let alone noteworthy. What the hell else are they going to do?

I really like the observation that is the header to this post. I'm thinking about all the contexts in which it might be used. I'm imagining it could be a useful interjection in the dreaded dinner party scenario when the doctrinaire lefty just starts off on a nasty rant, assuming that everyone in the room agrees with her. That observation would make a great way of both commenting on the rant and responding to it.

We all love Free Speech when we’re winning and/or everyone around us is saying the same thing…it’s once those *bastiges* from the “other side” start scoring points/winning elections/coming to our dinner parties/attending our lectures that Free Speech loses its appeal.

Actually, if you read what this blogger has written, what he considered obtuse was your headline:

"Taking race into account -- simply wrong or rather complex?"

Because the debate wasn't about whether race should be "taken into account". The debate was whether one group should be discriminated against because of race.

Your use of this euphemism is obtuse, in the sense that it doesn't clearly, precisely express what actually happened; it purposefully muddles the truth.

How can "taking race into account" be wrong? What's wrong with taking it into account, just noticing it? Nothing at all. What, are we to wear blinders?

But actually discriminating against someone based on race: Yes, that's always wrong, every fucking time. And that was what this debate was about.

Here's an analogy: Suppose AllenS is arguing with Cedarford, and Cedarford defends Hitler's final solution. Would it be obtuse for me to title a blog entry about this argument: "Giving Jews free train rides -- simply wrong or rather complex?", and go on to say how both men were in the wrong because they're simply talking past one another?

You say that's obtuse? Well, I guess you're not comfortable with a free marketplace of ideas, you idea-fascist, you.

I plead guilty to being uncomfortable with the metaphor of the "free marketplace of ideas."

To me it implies some type of metaphysical quality to good ideas against bad ones. That is, the good products will always over time be chosen by the consumer and the bad products will be left alone.

Not so. As we know, entire civilizations have been base on bad, indeed horrible ideas.

A marketplace of ideas also requires a discriminating consumer.

I'll admit that all of the alternatives to the "free marketplace" are worse and make me more unconfortable. We can't have a giant FTC or CPSC telling us what products we can consumer and which we can't.

But I think we need to be more careful about thinking that the marketplace will always - or even often - lead to people choosing the best items.

What we often miss about marketplaces is that they not only comprise a myriad of individual choices and decisions but also simultaneously rest upon a network of unconscious collective assumptions. So what we are also uncomfortable with is each other (not to mention the stuff about ourselves we don't like and project around like all get-out).

Men don't like shopping. We wait until we know what we want, go in, get it, and get out. We're the hunters. Sometimes, at the hardware store, we have to walk all the aisles so we can remember all the things we're supposed to get. Hunters move in a group or alone, but don't talk.

Women like shopping. We peruse all the goods, find the best ones of each type, and come home loaded. We're the berry pickers. We move in a group, chattering to keep the predators away.

"Whenever a premise is omitted in an enthymeme (and understood by the reader), it is assumed to be either a truism or an acceptable and non-controversial generalization. But sometimes the omitted premise is one with which the reader would not agree, and the enthymeme then becomes a logical fallacy-an unacceptable enthymeme. What are the omitted premises here, and why are they unacceptable? You can tell this tape recorder is a bunch of junk: it's made in Japan. He says he believes that Jesus was a great moral teacher, so he must be a Christian. Those kids are from Southern California? Then they must be either crazy or perverted. It goes without saying that you should be careful in your own writing not to use enthymemes dishonestly--that is, not to use clearly controversial assertions for the omitted premises. "

Many issues aren't black and white, but for those that are (or are strongly perceived as such), opponents and proponents talking past each other hardly seems remarkable, let alone noteworthy. What the hell else are they going to do?

I suppose I could see the merit in letting women have choices about their bodies HOWEVER I also understand there is another choice, that happens before THAT choice.

I think the pro-choice movement would share in the sentiment that the less number of abortions in society the better, but that the pro-life movement could, as well, understand that their issue is really not with abortion, but with unwanted pregnancies. Thus, remedying unwanted pregnancies will do nearly as much for their cause as ending the practice for abortion.

Or, we could just question each other's validity in having an opinion (right or wrong), which is pretty much how the two sides tend to operate.

But ever now and then a new idea like a new wine pairing with the right cheese comes to town and that's all she wrote. Two famous examples would be Common Sense by Paine and Uncle Tom's Cabin by Stowe.

Well, what's the compromise position for abortion or affirmative action?

First, I didn't mention anything about compromise. I said they don't hear each other.

As for where's the compromise on those issues, it starts with acknowledging the other side has legitimate concerns if not a legitimate point of view. If one side or the other isn't willing to do that much, then they are the problem.

I was wondering when abortion was gonna come up. Long story short, my stepsons wife ran off and got pregnant by another man, and then came home. He was demanding she get an abortion to return to the family, but my wife and I talked him out of it because in an abortion, the only innocent person is the one who is punished. I now have a 2 YO grandson who loves his Daddy more than anybody.

For the logical debate of this I have 2 questions for the pro-choice crowd. Is the "tissue mass" inside the womans body a disease, or tumor of some type? Does that "tissue mass" have a different DNA structure from the "hostess".

The answers are no, and yes, obviously. That brings us to the point that the "tissue mass" is a seperate being from the mother and such it has all the rights that pertain to a seperate being.

I know... rape, and incest...blah blah blah. I walked that walk. Its hard, damn hard, to stay with your convictions but without our convictions to hold us to a path we are a rudderless ship. Especially with such an easy way out. Twenty minutes of out patient and we don't have to think about it any more.

So that leaves he mothers health. And when I say health I mean life or death, not inconvenience, then it should be at the discretion of the mother.

I wouldn't trade my grandson for anything in the world, even my own health. Even if he doesn't carry one speck of my DNA, I carry him in my heart. Gotta stop now cause I'm crying. Don't abort your children.

Agree with Pastafarian and the blogger who deemed Althouse a flubber for her oft-used tactic of muddying the conversation with cryptic tags and then delighting in straightening all the plebes out when they don't decipher her tags properly. Waste of time.

Not all ideas are created equal and certainly not of equal worth. When you apply reasoning and reality to leftist ideas, they fall apart very easily. What liberals do is appeal to your emotions, to "fairness" for it's own sake regardless of the costs.

I think this is being uncharitable to most people, who are quite busy living their lives, working their passions and occupations, raising their kids, and improving their communitities. They choose to remain rationally ignorant of the interaction between competing memes, waiting for the Academy and its customers to sort out what are reasonable and effective strategies for the organization and operation of social system. To sort by test and evaluation.

If there is to be fault found, it is with the Academy, who prefers not the outcomes directed by the invisible hand. Instead, the Academy is convinced it has the gnosis to pre-select the correct ideas, and so must also squelch all competing ideas.

The plenty of people choose in their formative years a framework within which to live, and slowly modify that framework based on experience. The Academy these days, prefers to teach only one framework, as that retains their monopoly power.

The one said "Discrimmination based on race is bad". The other said "But for the Right Reasons, it is good."

andinista said: The one said "Discrimination based on race is bad". The other said "But for the Right Reasons, it is good."

See, some people (absolutists, I suppose) say they don't care how much potential good could come of government powers use to discriminate based on race, it's bad and we're not gonna go there.

The (relativists, I suppose) say no, sometimes you have to temporarily do a nominally bad thing to achieve a good downstream result.

Fine. Compare and contrast:Government power used:1. To discriminate by race.2. To enforce slavery for economic development.3. For genocide to stop destructive ethnic conflicts.4. To force citizens to pay for their neighbor's abortion.

Your countrymen did and do all these things, for all the Right Reasons. And I claim that even knowing what we know now, if we had to do it all over again, we would do these things again. We're not that enlightened, and our ancestors were not benighted barbarians. Be not too smug in your righteous certitude.